Harold Kasselman's Blog - Posts Tagged "mitch-williams"
Former major league pitcher seeks vindication in law suit against MLB network
On January 3, 2017 Mitch Williams, former major league pitcher and television analyst, is scheduled to appear in Camden N.J. Superior Court for a civil trial. Williams, a former relief pitcher for several teams, is perhaps best known for the walk-off home run he delivered to Joe Carter of the Toronto Blue Jays in the sixth game in 1993 that clinched the World Series. In recent years, from 2011 to 2014, he had appeared on the MLB Network as an analyst.
Williams known as "Wild Thing" in his baseball career for his control problems and awkward pitching delivery(and perhaps related to the Charlie Sheen character Rickie "Wild Thing" Vaughn in the movie Major League), filed suit against MLB Network for breach of contract. In his own court pleadings, Williams revealed that his contract called for him to be paid $700,000 for the 2015 calendar year. (The contract was included in the court filings)The network initially suspended Williams for actions as a coach at a youth baseball tournament in Maryland(Ripken tournament) in May 2014. His son played on a N.J. team in that tournament and Williams was his coach.
Initially, MLB Network offered to reinstate Williams if he agreed to sign an amended contract that forbade him to attend any of his children's games and required "therapeutic counseling". Williams refused those conditions. He was terminated in June based on a morals clause in the contract which permitted termination if Williams committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement.
So why was Williams terminated? During the course of the tournament a sports website called Deadspin published two separate accounts of Williams' behavior on the field during two games which the Network found to be a violation of that morals clause. (In the first game Williams was actually ejected from the game)Those actions were reported as follows:
1. He cursed and used the "f" word in the presence of ten year old players and umpires. 2. had heated arguments and confrontations with umpires(face to face in which others had to intervene) which caused delays in the game. 3. called an umpire a "mother****er. 4. yelled to parents in the stands something about getting an umpire fired. 5. called the opposing N.J. teams' pitcher a "pussy in the presence of his own team's players. 6. Directed his catcher to bean the opposing team's pitcher when he came to bat.
In that regard, Deadspin published pictures of Williams and an umpire face to face in an apparent heated argument, In addition they published a video of the second game which appears to show Williams talking to his catcher near home plate before the opposing pitcher came to bat. The catcher is then seen trotting out to the mound and talking to his pitcher. The first pitch thrown by the Williams coached pitcher hits the opposing pitcher in the ribs.
Williams denied all of the allegations and ultimately filed a law suit against Gawker Media, the former owner of the Deadspin website for defamation(and other related claims) and breach of contract against MLB Network.
In June 2016 Judge Michael Kassel granted a summary judgment motion in favor of Gawker Media on the allegation that they had defamed Williams. The judge found that Williams was a "public figure" within the meaning of first amendment free speech law. That finding is pertinent in the law because it then required a higher burden of proof for Williams to prevail. It was his burden to prove that the published stories were posted with "actual malice". In other words, Williams had to prove that the posts were made with actual knowledge that they were false or in reckless disregard of whether they were true or not. He also found that based upon Deadspin's multiple sources of witnesses(children, umpires, parents, spectators, photographs, and video), the posts were either "substantially true or protected opinion". Because they judge found there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to go forward against Gawker media, he dismissed the case as to them.
Now it is Williams against MLB Network for breach of contract. It is interesting to note that a unique legal issue remains to be sorted out at trial. Does the network have to prove that Williams actually said and did the things that were reported? Or is it enough that MLB Network has an honest belief that he did based on the reporting? Or does what really matter the public's perception of whether Williams did or said those things? If the public believes the reporting, doesn't that in and of itself demonstrate a violation of the morals clause? And how does one determine what the public believes?
Those questions may be answered if the case is actually tried on January 3, 2017.
UPDATE: The trial was postponed at Williams" attorney's request. The new date is in June.
Williams known as "Wild Thing" in his baseball career for his control problems and awkward pitching delivery(and perhaps related to the Charlie Sheen character Rickie "Wild Thing" Vaughn in the movie Major League), filed suit against MLB Network for breach of contract. In his own court pleadings, Williams revealed that his contract called for him to be paid $700,000 for the 2015 calendar year. (The contract was included in the court filings)The network initially suspended Williams for actions as a coach at a youth baseball tournament in Maryland(Ripken tournament) in May 2014. His son played on a N.J. team in that tournament and Williams was his coach.
Initially, MLB Network offered to reinstate Williams if he agreed to sign an amended contract that forbade him to attend any of his children's games and required "therapeutic counseling". Williams refused those conditions. He was terminated in June based on a morals clause in the contract which permitted termination if Williams committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement.
So why was Williams terminated? During the course of the tournament a sports website called Deadspin published two separate accounts of Williams' behavior on the field during two games which the Network found to be a violation of that morals clause. (In the first game Williams was actually ejected from the game)Those actions were reported as follows:
1. He cursed and used the "f" word in the presence of ten year old players and umpires. 2. had heated arguments and confrontations with umpires(face to face in which others had to intervene) which caused delays in the game. 3. called an umpire a "mother****er. 4. yelled to parents in the stands something about getting an umpire fired. 5. called the opposing N.J. teams' pitcher a "pussy in the presence of his own team's players. 6. Directed his catcher to bean the opposing team's pitcher when he came to bat.
In that regard, Deadspin published pictures of Williams and an umpire face to face in an apparent heated argument, In addition they published a video of the second game which appears to show Williams talking to his catcher near home plate before the opposing pitcher came to bat. The catcher is then seen trotting out to the mound and talking to his pitcher. The first pitch thrown by the Williams coached pitcher hits the opposing pitcher in the ribs.
Williams denied all of the allegations and ultimately filed a law suit against Gawker Media, the former owner of the Deadspin website for defamation(and other related claims) and breach of contract against MLB Network.
In June 2016 Judge Michael Kassel granted a summary judgment motion in favor of Gawker Media on the allegation that they had defamed Williams. The judge found that Williams was a "public figure" within the meaning of first amendment free speech law. That finding is pertinent in the law because it then required a higher burden of proof for Williams to prevail. It was his burden to prove that the published stories were posted with "actual malice". In other words, Williams had to prove that the posts were made with actual knowledge that they were false or in reckless disregard of whether they were true or not. He also found that based upon Deadspin's multiple sources of witnesses(children, umpires, parents, spectators, photographs, and video), the posts were either "substantially true or protected opinion". Because they judge found there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to go forward against Gawker media, he dismissed the case as to them.
Now it is Williams against MLB Network for breach of contract. It is interesting to note that a unique legal issue remains to be sorted out at trial. Does the network have to prove that Williams actually said and did the things that were reported? Or is it enough that MLB Network has an honest belief that he did based on the reporting? Or does what really matter the public's perception of whether Williams did or said those things? If the public believes the reporting, doesn't that in and of itself demonstrate a violation of the morals clause? And how does one determine what the public believes?
Those questions may be answered if the case is actually tried on January 3, 2017.
UPDATE: The trial was postponed at Williams" attorney's request. The new date is in June.
Mitch Williams vs. MLB Network
A jury of four women and four men were sworn in today in Camden County Superior Court, New Jersey. They will be deciding the civil suit brought by former baseball player and legal analyst Mitch Williams against his former employer the MLB Network. Some of the those on the witness list include former players and current analysts Bill Ripken and Harold Reynolds. It's not clear if they will actually testify.Williams alleges that the network terminated his professional services contract unlawfully. He had been an analyst from 2009 until his termination in June of 2014. The MLB Network counters that Williams breached the terms of the contract by violating the" morals clause" of the contract, and therefor the firing was lawful.
The facts of the suit are presented in a prior blog(See below), but they concern a little league tournament in Maryland where Williams coached his son's team.
Today Judge Michael Kassel made some significant legal rulings on motions presented by the parties. Initially, the judge ruled that the defendant network would have to prove the incidents relied upon them for firing Williams. In other words, he ruled that it was not enough that the public had heard about the alleged offending incidents which then put the network in poor light with the public. Rather it is now incumbent upon the MLB Network to prove that Williams actually committed the acts which led to his termination.
Secondly, the judge ruled against Williams' attorney in seeking consequential damages in this contract case. The Williams' team had argued that he was entitled to sue, not only for the two lost years of income(about 1.2 million dollars), but also for the lost opportunities of jobs as a result of the bad publicity caused by the termination. In other words, they argued that Williams' reputation suffered so much that he was no longer asked to do analysis for Fox or other networks for baseball games. Those opportunities brought $4,500 per game and amounted to a loss of $35,000 per season for two years or more. The court relied on a federal decision involving the termination of actress Vanessa Redgrave in the 80's. She had been terminated by the Boston Symphony orchestra for political statements made by her about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. She thereafter had difficulty obtaining jobs and sued for consequential damages above and beyond the performance with Boston, alleging that the firing and not the statements were the cause of her difficulties. The court said her proofs were too speculative and Judge Kassel relied upon that decision as correct law in the area of a professional service contract.
But the judge did rule in favor of Williams on a motion to dismiss made by the network. The network sought to have his claim dismissed on the grounds that he had violated a confidentiality clause of their contract. In it, matters of compensation were to be kept confidential and not disclosed. But Williams filed a copy of his contract with his civil complaint and it was made public. Judge Kassel ruled that the disclosure of the contract was not a material breach and was necessary to pursue his claim in court.
Lastly the court dealt two evidentiary blows to the network. The court rules that the network could not introduce a portion of Williams' book "Straight Talk by Mitch Williams". The network wanted those portion admitted wherein Williams admitted that he had deliberately thrown or beaned batters when he played. That admission could have bolstered the network's case that Williams instructed his pitcher via his catcher to bean the opposing pitcher when he came to bat. The second ruling barred the network from bringing in evidence of similar "bad conduct" concerning Williams' daughter during a basketball in 2008.
Opening arguments will begin tomorrow at 9:30.
On January 3, 2017 Mitch Williams, former major league pitcher and television analyst, is scheduled to appear in Camden N.J. Superior Court for a civil trial. Williams, a former relief pitcher for several teams, is perhaps best known for the walk-off home run he delivered to Joe Carter of the Toronto Blue Jays in the sixth game in 1993 that clinched the World Series. In recent years, from 2011 to 2014, he had appeared on the MLB Network as an analyst.
Williams known as "Wild Thing" in his baseball career for his control problems and awkward pitching delivery(and perhaps related to the Charlie Sheen character Rickie "Wild Thing" Vaughn in the movie Major League), filed suit against MLB Network for breach of contract. In his own court pleadings, Williams revealed that his contract called for him to be paid $700,000 for the 2015 calendar year. (The contract was included in the court filings)The network initially suspended Williams for actions as a coach at a youth baseball tournament in Maryland(Ripken tournament) in May 2014. His son played on a N.J. team in that tournament and Williams was his coach.
Initially, MLB Network offered to reinstate Williams if he agreed to sign an amended contract that forbade him to attend any of his children's games and required "therapeutic counseling". Williams refused those conditions. He was terminated in June based on a morals clause in the contract which permitted termination if Williams committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement.
So why was Williams terminated? During the course of the tournament a sports website called Deadspin published two separate accounts of Williams' behavior on the field during two games which the Network found to be a violation of that morals clause. (In the first game Williams was actually ejected from the game)Those actions were reported as follows:
1. He cursed and used the "f" word in the presence of ten year old players and umpires. 2. had heated arguments and confrontations with umpires(face to face in which others had to intervene) which caused delays in the game. 3. called an umpire a "mother****er. 4. yelled to parents in the stands something about getting an umpire fired. 5. called the opposing N.J. teams' pitcher a "pussy in the presence of his own team's players. 6. Directed his catcher to bean the opposing team's pitcher when he came to bat.
In that regard, Deadspin published pictures of Williams and an umpire face to face in an apparent heated argument, In addition they published a video of the second game which appears to show Williams talking to his catcher near home plate before the opposing pitcher came to bat. The catcher is then seen trotting out to the mound and talking to his pitcher. The first pitch thrown by the Williams coached pitcher hits the opposing pitcher in the ribs.
Williams denied all of the allegations and ultimately filed a law suit against Gawker Media, the former owner of the Deadspin website for defamation(and other related claims) and breach of contract against MLB Network.
In June 2016 Judge Michael Kassel granted a summary judgment motion in favor of Gawker Media on the allegation that they had defamed Williams. The judge found that Williams was a "public figure" within the meaning of first amendment free speech law. That finding is pertinent in the law because it then required a higher burden of proof for Williams to prevail. It was his burden to prove that the published stories were posted with "actual malice". In other words, Williams had to prove that the posts were made with actual knowledge that they were false or in reckless disregard of whether they were true or not. He also found that based upon Deadspin's multiple sources of witnesses(children, umpires, parents, spectators, photographs, and video), the posts were either "substantially true or protected opinion". Because they judge found there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to go forward against Gawker media, he dismissed the case as to them.
Now it is Williams against MLB Network for breach of contract. It is interesting to note that a unique legal issue remains to be sorted out at trial. Does the network have to prove that Williams actually said and did the things that were reported? Or is it enough that MLB Network has an honest belief that he did based on the reporting? Or does what really matter the public's perception of whether Williams did or said those things? If the public believes the reporting, doesn't that in and of itself demonstrate a violation of the morals clause? And how does one determine what the public believes?
Those questions may be answered if the case is actually tried on January 3, 2017.
UPDATE: The trial was postponed at Williams" attorney's request. The new date is in June.
The facts of the suit are presented in a prior blog(See below), but they concern a little league tournament in Maryland where Williams coached his son's team.
Today Judge Michael Kassel made some significant legal rulings on motions presented by the parties. Initially, the judge ruled that the defendant network would have to prove the incidents relied upon them for firing Williams. In other words, he ruled that it was not enough that the public had heard about the alleged offending incidents which then put the network in poor light with the public. Rather it is now incumbent upon the MLB Network to prove that Williams actually committed the acts which led to his termination.
Secondly, the judge ruled against Williams' attorney in seeking consequential damages in this contract case. The Williams' team had argued that he was entitled to sue, not only for the two lost years of income(about 1.2 million dollars), but also for the lost opportunities of jobs as a result of the bad publicity caused by the termination. In other words, they argued that Williams' reputation suffered so much that he was no longer asked to do analysis for Fox or other networks for baseball games. Those opportunities brought $4,500 per game and amounted to a loss of $35,000 per season for two years or more. The court relied on a federal decision involving the termination of actress Vanessa Redgrave in the 80's. She had been terminated by the Boston Symphony orchestra for political statements made by her about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. She thereafter had difficulty obtaining jobs and sued for consequential damages above and beyond the performance with Boston, alleging that the firing and not the statements were the cause of her difficulties. The court said her proofs were too speculative and Judge Kassel relied upon that decision as correct law in the area of a professional service contract.
But the judge did rule in favor of Williams on a motion to dismiss made by the network. The network sought to have his claim dismissed on the grounds that he had violated a confidentiality clause of their contract. In it, matters of compensation were to be kept confidential and not disclosed. But Williams filed a copy of his contract with his civil complaint and it was made public. Judge Kassel ruled that the disclosure of the contract was not a material breach and was necessary to pursue his claim in court.
Lastly the court dealt two evidentiary blows to the network. The court rules that the network could not introduce a portion of Williams' book "Straight Talk by Mitch Williams". The network wanted those portion admitted wherein Williams admitted that he had deliberately thrown or beaned batters when he played. That admission could have bolstered the network's case that Williams instructed his pitcher via his catcher to bean the opposing pitcher when he came to bat. The second ruling barred the network from bringing in evidence of similar "bad conduct" concerning Williams' daughter during a basketball in 2008.
Opening arguments will begin tomorrow at 9:30.
On January 3, 2017 Mitch Williams, former major league pitcher and television analyst, is scheduled to appear in Camden N.J. Superior Court for a civil trial. Williams, a former relief pitcher for several teams, is perhaps best known for the walk-off home run he delivered to Joe Carter of the Toronto Blue Jays in the sixth game in 1993 that clinched the World Series. In recent years, from 2011 to 2014, he had appeared on the MLB Network as an analyst.
Williams known as "Wild Thing" in his baseball career for his control problems and awkward pitching delivery(and perhaps related to the Charlie Sheen character Rickie "Wild Thing" Vaughn in the movie Major League), filed suit against MLB Network for breach of contract. In his own court pleadings, Williams revealed that his contract called for him to be paid $700,000 for the 2015 calendar year. (The contract was included in the court filings)The network initially suspended Williams for actions as a coach at a youth baseball tournament in Maryland(Ripken tournament) in May 2014. His son played on a N.J. team in that tournament and Williams was his coach.
Initially, MLB Network offered to reinstate Williams if he agreed to sign an amended contract that forbade him to attend any of his children's games and required "therapeutic counseling". Williams refused those conditions. He was terminated in June based on a morals clause in the contract which permitted termination if Williams committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement.
So why was Williams terminated? During the course of the tournament a sports website called Deadspin published two separate accounts of Williams' behavior on the field during two games which the Network found to be a violation of that morals clause. (In the first game Williams was actually ejected from the game)Those actions were reported as follows:
1. He cursed and used the "f" word in the presence of ten year old players and umpires. 2. had heated arguments and confrontations with umpires(face to face in which others had to intervene) which caused delays in the game. 3. called an umpire a "mother****er. 4. yelled to parents in the stands something about getting an umpire fired. 5. called the opposing N.J. teams' pitcher a "pussy in the presence of his own team's players. 6. Directed his catcher to bean the opposing team's pitcher when he came to bat.
In that regard, Deadspin published pictures of Williams and an umpire face to face in an apparent heated argument, In addition they published a video of the second game which appears to show Williams talking to his catcher near home plate before the opposing pitcher came to bat. The catcher is then seen trotting out to the mound and talking to his pitcher. The first pitch thrown by the Williams coached pitcher hits the opposing pitcher in the ribs.
Williams denied all of the allegations and ultimately filed a law suit against Gawker Media, the former owner of the Deadspin website for defamation(and other related claims) and breach of contract against MLB Network.
In June 2016 Judge Michael Kassel granted a summary judgment motion in favor of Gawker Media on the allegation that they had defamed Williams. The judge found that Williams was a "public figure" within the meaning of first amendment free speech law. That finding is pertinent in the law because it then required a higher burden of proof for Williams to prevail. It was his burden to prove that the published stories were posted with "actual malice". In other words, Williams had to prove that the posts were made with actual knowledge that they were false or in reckless disregard of whether they were true or not. He also found that based upon Deadspin's multiple sources of witnesses(children, umpires, parents, spectators, photographs, and video), the posts were either "substantially true or protected opinion". Because they judge found there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to go forward against Gawker media, he dismissed the case as to them.
Now it is Williams against MLB Network for breach of contract. It is interesting to note that a unique legal issue remains to be sorted out at trial. Does the network have to prove that Williams actually said and did the things that were reported? Or is it enough that MLB Network has an honest belief that he did based on the reporting? Or does what really matter the public's perception of whether Williams did or said those things? If the public believes the reporting, doesn't that in and of itself demonstrate a violation of the morals clause? And how does one determine what the public believes?
Those questions may be answered if the case is actually tried on January 3, 2017.
UPDATE: The trial was postponed at Williams" attorney's request. The new date is in June.
Mitch Williams Vs MLB Newtwork testimony
The first witness called by Mitch Williams was an adverse party; namely former President of the MLB Network Anthony Petitti, who is currently the COO of Major League Baseball. (The Network is a subsidiary of Major League Baseball). Mr. Petitti, who succeeded Rob Manfred in the COO position, was the man who hired Williams in 2009 and who also terminated him on June 26th, 2014. Williams' lawyer successfully endeavored to narrow down the specific provision of the morals clause that was deemed worthy of termination of the contract. That provision allowed for termination if the artist(Williams):" committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement." Then counsel for Williams went through the allegations individually with Petitti and suggested that they were based on hearsay, unnamed sources, and not reliable factual accounts of the events of the May 10 and 11 ball games in the tournament for 10 year old youngsters. Counsel also got Pettiti to admit that he had not waited for Williams to produce statements of individuals in his defense.
But Petitti retorted in a soft and barely audible tones that he had seen a photograph, which was also shown to the jury, of Williams chin to chin with an umpire. That he had thereafter been given a video of the games on Saturday and Sunday by Billy Ripken(current MLB Network analyst and former player) which confirmed that Williams had been ejected and that he had continued to argue with the umpires for seven minutes, including an alleged profanity filled rant, before he left the game. Pettiti admitted he had no direct knowledge of the "acts" but that he had spoken to Williams by phone after the first incident and yet again after Sunday's incident. He said he found Williams' explanation "not credible" when compared with the video and accounts from Deadspin(a sports website that published two articles about the "acts" alleged. Williams told him he had his back turned to the umpire and yelled into the crowd with a shrug that we will just have to get us some new umpires which resulted in his ejection. (The attorney for MLB Network had argued in his opening that turning one's back to an umpire and pretending to talk to the crowd was a ruse used to avoid ejection.) Testimony also revealed that one umpire had challenged Williams to a fight in the future during the episode. Pettiti also said he disbelieved Williams' account of the alleged instruction by Williams to his team's catcher(the catcher is the son of Williams) to tell his own pitcher to bean the opposing batter. (the other team's pitcher) The video which Petitti saw after the Sunday game show Williams talking to his son between innings. Then the son(catcher) is seen walking to the mound and talks to the pitcher. On the very first pitch the batter is struck with the pitched ball. Petitti quotes Williams' as saying that he merely told the catcher to tell the pitcher to "knock the batter off the plate" and not to throw at his head or hit him. Petitti said he felt even by his own admission Williams acted at least recklessly for telling a 10 year old to "knock him off the plate" because such tender years children don't have the necessary control to pin point where the ball will go.
Petitti said he felt Williams did not display in that conversation an understanding of the quality and nature of his inappropriate acts. Those acts also included an allegation by the child who was hit by the pitch that he was called "pussy" by Williams in hearing of many players.
Counsel for Williams primary examination was to suggest that Petitti had no real proof upon which to fire her client and that he had fired Williams in retaliation when Williams retained a lawyer. The examination revealed that Petitti had been willing, even after a commercial sponsor cancelled a Dove television spot with Williams, to try and save Williams' job based on the above conditions. Pettiti said he had been negotiating with Williams' agent Russ Spielman from May 16th, when Williams began his suspension, for an amended contract for several weeks about conditions which also included anger management and an admission of wrong doing. Spielman, according to MLB Network's lawyer, urged Williams to accept the offer and told Williams that if he didn't, he was looking at "scorched earth".
Negotiations continued until Williams retained a lawyer who wrote to Pettiti and said that MLB Network had breached the contract by not paying, that Williams denied any wrong doing, and that counsel wanted to negotiate a settlement. The next day Pettiti fired Willimas. Counsel for Williams suggested by her questioning that Petitti fired her client not because of any proof of wrong doing, but rather because he had hired a lawyer to defend his contractual rights. Pettiti denied that and said he fired Williams at that point because he had tried to reach out to Spielman and got no response for three weeks. When he got a letter from a different lawyer( not one who had negotiated the original contract) which denied any wrong doing, Pettiti felt he had no recourse but to terminate Williams. He also said another incident bolstered his opinion that Williams was unrepentant. During that interim, Williams had been in the office of a female publicity relations staffer and Williams had brought the woman to tears in the public office by cursing and pounding his hand on her desk. Testimony ended as the video of the games were about to be shown. Earlier Judge Kassel had ruled that MLB Network was not permitted to argue that the umpires had smelled alcohol on Williams' breath and that his eyes were red and his speech slurred. The basis was a discovery violation in that MLB Network did not specify that as a factor pre-trial.
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement." Then counsel for Williams went through the allegations individually with Petitti and suggested that they were based on hearsay, unnamed sources, and not reliable factual accounts of the events of the May 10 and 11 ball games in the tournament for 10 year old youngsters. Counsel also got Pettiti to admit that he had not waited for Williams to produce statements of individuals in his defense.
But Petitti retorted in a soft and barely audible tones that he had seen a photograph, which was also shown to the jury, of Williams chin to chin with an umpire. That he had thereafter been given a video of the games on Saturday and Sunday by Billy Ripken(current MLB Network analyst and former player) which confirmed that Williams had been ejected and that he had continued to argue with the umpires for seven minutes, including an alleged profanity filled rant, before he left the game. Pettiti admitted he had no direct knowledge of the "acts" but that he had spoken to Williams by phone after the first incident and yet again after Sunday's incident. He said he found Williams' explanation "not credible" when compared with the video and accounts from Deadspin(a sports website that published two articles about the "acts" alleged. Williams told him he had his back turned to the umpire and yelled into the crowd with a shrug that we will just have to get us some new umpires which resulted in his ejection. (The attorney for MLB Network had argued in his opening that turning one's back to an umpire and pretending to talk to the crowd was a ruse used to avoid ejection.) Testimony also revealed that one umpire had challenged Williams to a fight in the future during the episode. Pettiti also said he disbelieved Williams' account of the alleged instruction by Williams to his team's catcher(the catcher is the son of Williams) to tell his own pitcher to bean the opposing batter. (the other team's pitcher) The video which Petitti saw after the Sunday game show Williams talking to his son between innings. Then the son(catcher) is seen walking to the mound and talks to the pitcher. On the very first pitch the batter is struck with the pitched ball. Petitti quotes Williams' as saying that he merely told the catcher to tell the pitcher to "knock the batter off the plate" and not to throw at his head or hit him. Petitti said he felt even by his own admission Williams acted at least recklessly for telling a 10 year old to "knock him off the plate" because such tender years children don't have the necessary control to pin point where the ball will go.
Petitti said he felt Williams did not display in that conversation an understanding of the quality and nature of his inappropriate acts. Those acts also included an allegation by the child who was hit by the pitch that he was called "pussy" by Williams in hearing of many players.
Counsel for Williams primary examination was to suggest that Petitti had no real proof upon which to fire her client and that he had fired Williams in retaliation when Williams retained a lawyer. The examination revealed that Petitti had been willing, even after a commercial sponsor cancelled a Dove television spot with Williams, to try and save Williams' job based on the above conditions. Pettiti said he had been negotiating with Williams' agent Russ Spielman from May 16th, when Williams began his suspension, for an amended contract for several weeks about conditions which also included anger management and an admission of wrong doing. Spielman, according to MLB Network's lawyer, urged Williams to accept the offer and told Williams that if he didn't, he was looking at "scorched earth".
Negotiations continued until Williams retained a lawyer who wrote to Pettiti and said that MLB Network had breached the contract by not paying, that Williams denied any wrong doing, and that counsel wanted to negotiate a settlement. The next day Pettiti fired Willimas. Counsel for Williams suggested by her questioning that Petitti fired her client not because of any proof of wrong doing, but rather because he had hired a lawyer to defend his contractual rights. Pettiti denied that and said he fired Williams at that point because he had tried to reach out to Spielman and got no response for three weeks. When he got a letter from a different lawyer( not one who had negotiated the original contract) which denied any wrong doing, Pettiti felt he had no recourse but to terminate Williams. He also said another incident bolstered his opinion that Williams was unrepentant. During that interim, Williams had been in the office of a female publicity relations staffer and Williams had brought the woman to tears in the public office by cursing and pounding his hand on her desk. Testimony ended as the video of the games were about to be shown. Earlier Judge Kassel had ruled that MLB Network was not permitted to argue that the umpires had smelled alcohol on Williams' breath and that his eyes were red and his speech slurred. The basis was a discovery violation in that MLB Network did not specify that as a factor pre-trial.
Mitch Williams takes the stand
I didn't go to court today, but I'm told by a reliable source that Pettita's testimony resumed but nothing new was developed. Then Williams took the stand for direct examination by his lawyer. His demeanor was affable and relaxed. The video of the first game on Saturday was played and no cursing could be heard. Williams denied that he had cursed at the umpire. He stated that he turned to the crowd, after a ball that almost hit the dirt was called a strike, and yelled "I have to get this guy another job".
His version of the alleged bean ball was that he told is catcher to tell the pitcher to pitch inside to the batter because this particular batter had previously hit a double off of an outside pitch. This is in direct conflict with the testimony of Anthony Pettiti(COO of major league baseball). Remember from yesterday's blog that Pettiti was adamant that in his conversation with Williams, the latter said admitted that he had told his pitcher to "knock the opposing pitcher off the plate". But it's also noteworthy that a day earlier, a player on the opposing team had been hit by a pitch and Williams ran onto the field to help the youngster. Apparently Williams helped his cause today. He will resume testimony Monday afternoon.
His version of the alleged bean ball was that he told is catcher to tell the pitcher to pitch inside to the batter because this particular batter had previously hit a double off of an outside pitch. This is in direct conflict with the testimony of Anthony Pettiti(COO of major league baseball). Remember from yesterday's blog that Pettiti was adamant that in his conversation with Williams, the latter said admitted that he had told his pitcher to "knock the opposing pitcher off the plate". But it's also noteworthy that a day earlier, a player on the opposing team had been hit by a pitch and Williams ran onto the field to help the youngster. Apparently Williams helped his cause today. He will resume testimony Monday afternoon.
Mitch Williams eats his words in law suit with MLB Network
Mitch Williams retook the stand today on direct examination from his attorney. Williams formally denied ever ordering his pitcher to "bean an opposing little league batter" in a tournament in Maryland in May of 2014. He also denied calling the opposing pitcher (a ten year old) a "pussy." In fact, Williams went further and said he was incapable of calling any young child a name because he has seen what his two autistic children have gone through in their lives with name calling. Williams also denied cursing at the games in the presence of children or cursing the umpire.
His counsel attempted to demonstrate that her client was hood winked by the network into thinking his job was safe, and then after a week of work was fired. Williams claimed he had no further conversations with former MLB Network CEO Anthony Petiti after a May 17th call. Petitti told Williams in that conversation that the second article from Deadspin and the video of the Sunday game were "bad". Petitti told Williams to go to the office of Lorraine Fischer of the network's publicity and human affairs department to view the video. Williams admitted on direct that he was frustrated and upset by his situation and expressed it in a loud manner. He said that he merely said, "what are you seeing here that I don't?" But he did admit that Fischer began to cry. Williams said he apologized and later texted the woman to again apologize. His demeanor on direct was calm, deliberate and he often made eye contact with the jury.
On cross examination, defense counsel demonstrated that the video did not begin until after the warm up tosses by the pitcher and suggested that the argument with the umpire was not captured on video. He also played a portion of the video and audio which purported to show Williams' disgust at a called strike by yelling "fuck" out loud from his first base coaching position. The jury will have to determine if that was said by Williams or even uttered. This writer was unable to determine whether it was uttered.. But Williams was thereafter ejected.
Williams got into trouble by volunteering in his answer on cross, a cardinal rule of law is never volunteer, that he has never cursed at a little league game. Defense counsel for MLB jumped on that statement and introduced into evidence a string email between Williams and a parent of one of Williams' players on his own team from a year earlier. The parent had said he no longer wanted his son to play on the team. In the email, which Williams reluctantly admitted he wrote, he admits cursing at the game and says it will never happen again. Williams admitted the authenticity of the emails but said he couldn't remember cursing. At this point Williams' face became very red, but he maintained his control. In a lesser relevant matter, the defense got Williams to admit that he had written an email saying he wanted to "run up the score" against the opposing team by scoring 50 runs to embarrass the other team's coach. That coach had cut Mitch's son from the team. Defense counsel suggested that he was using ten year olds to humiliate other ten year old children for a personal vendetta.
Defense counsel was able to demonstrate a more significant point in a video played to the jury. The video shows the pitcher for Williams' team throwing a ball that was wild and over the head of the batter in Saturday's game. The very next batter gets beaned in the head by the pitcher on a wild pitch. The ball hit with such force that the ball rolled half way up the first base line. The child had to leave the game as a result. Clearly defense counsel will argue that, even if Williams didn't deliberately instruct that same pitcher(he pitched both Saturday and Sunday games) to bean the opposing pitcher the next day, telling the pitcher to "knock the batter off the plate" was egregiously reckless. That is especially significant given the wildness of the pitcher on Saturday.
The jury was excused when defense counsel tried to ask Williams about an autograph signing event a few years ago in which allegedly Williams used the f word against Dykstra in public. The judge, with little hesitation ruled such behavior was totally irrelevant to the facts of the current case and ruled it out.
The case will continue tomorrow.
His counsel attempted to demonstrate that her client was hood winked by the network into thinking his job was safe, and then after a week of work was fired. Williams claimed he had no further conversations with former MLB Network CEO Anthony Petiti after a May 17th call. Petitti told Williams in that conversation that the second article from Deadspin and the video of the Sunday game were "bad". Petitti told Williams to go to the office of Lorraine Fischer of the network's publicity and human affairs department to view the video. Williams admitted on direct that he was frustrated and upset by his situation and expressed it in a loud manner. He said that he merely said, "what are you seeing here that I don't?" But he did admit that Fischer began to cry. Williams said he apologized and later texted the woman to again apologize. His demeanor on direct was calm, deliberate and he often made eye contact with the jury.
On cross examination, defense counsel demonstrated that the video did not begin until after the warm up tosses by the pitcher and suggested that the argument with the umpire was not captured on video. He also played a portion of the video and audio which purported to show Williams' disgust at a called strike by yelling "fuck" out loud from his first base coaching position. The jury will have to determine if that was said by Williams or even uttered. This writer was unable to determine whether it was uttered.. But Williams was thereafter ejected.
Williams got into trouble by volunteering in his answer on cross, a cardinal rule of law is never volunteer, that he has never cursed at a little league game. Defense counsel for MLB jumped on that statement and introduced into evidence a string email between Williams and a parent of one of Williams' players on his own team from a year earlier. The parent had said he no longer wanted his son to play on the team. In the email, which Williams reluctantly admitted he wrote, he admits cursing at the game and says it will never happen again. Williams admitted the authenticity of the emails but said he couldn't remember cursing. At this point Williams' face became very red, but he maintained his control. In a lesser relevant matter, the defense got Williams to admit that he had written an email saying he wanted to "run up the score" against the opposing team by scoring 50 runs to embarrass the other team's coach. That coach had cut Mitch's son from the team. Defense counsel suggested that he was using ten year olds to humiliate other ten year old children for a personal vendetta.
Defense counsel was able to demonstrate a more significant point in a video played to the jury. The video shows the pitcher for Williams' team throwing a ball that was wild and over the head of the batter in Saturday's game. The very next batter gets beaned in the head by the pitcher on a wild pitch. The ball hit with such force that the ball rolled half way up the first base line. The child had to leave the game as a result. Clearly defense counsel will argue that, even if Williams didn't deliberately instruct that same pitcher(he pitched both Saturday and Sunday games) to bean the opposing pitcher the next day, telling the pitcher to "knock the batter off the plate" was egregiously reckless. That is especially significant given the wildness of the pitcher on Saturday.
The jury was excused when defense counsel tried to ask Williams about an autograph signing event a few years ago in which allegedly Williams used the f word against Dykstra in public. The judge, with little hesitation ruled such behavior was totally irrelevant to the facts of the current case and ruled it out.
The case will continue tomorrow.
Mitch Williams Vs MLB Newtwork testimony
It is anticipated that the judge in the Williams vs. MLB Network may charge the jury at the end of the day. If so, they have to decide if there was a wrongful termination and if so, what are the damages. During Williams' testimony his counsel brought out his salary for his five year contract plus the one year option year. This was elicited so the jury would have a basis to determine how much money to find he should recover if he was wrongfully terminated. The salary as I remember,was to be:
Contract year November through October 2014 was $625,000. (he was fired June 26th, 2016). For the following twelve months, $650,000. Then the next year would have been $700,000. The option year was to be $750,000. Currently Williams is working for a Mt. Laurel, NJ company called Raymond Transportation. He is a corporate liaison whose job is to get new business for shipping freight on long haulers. His salary is $84,000 per year without bonuses. Williams now resides in Texas.
Contract year November through October 2014 was $625,000. (he was fired June 26th, 2016). For the following twelve months, $650,000. Then the next year would have been $700,000. The option year was to be $750,000. Currently Williams is working for a Mt. Laurel, NJ company called Raymond Transportation. He is a corporate liaison whose job is to get new business for shipping freight on long haulers. His salary is $84,000 per year without bonuses. Williams now resides in Texas.
Mitch Williams trial against MLB Network continues
Mitch Williams trial against MLB Network continues
The attorney for Williams called two female parents of little leaguers on Williams' team ( Jersey Wild) yesterday to contradict the MLB Network's allegations. Both attended the May 10 and 11 tournament games at the Ripken field in 2014. They denied hearing any improper language from the coach Mitch Williams. A male witness, a parent of the Olney Pirates team testified that he heard the Pirates' head coach say, after the alleged "pussy" calling incident, that the coach was going to bury Mitch Williams. The plaintiff Williams rested their case.
The lawyer for the Network called as its first witness the 13 year old catcher for the Jersey Titans, the opposing team in the Sunday game against the Jersey Wild. He testified to the events of that day when he was just ten years old. He said he heard Williams talking in the dugout to his own team. He heard Williams call his friend the Titan pitcher a "pussy". He did not say that Williams said it to him directly, but it was loud enough for him to hear it clearly, and Williams turned towards the pitcher when he said it. The 13 year old also testified that he had an autographed baseball signed by Williams that he gave to a teacher because he was so upset about what Williams had said about his friend. The next witness was the Public Relations MLB Network employee Lorraine Fisher. She verified that former MLB Network President Anthony Petitti told Williams to view video of the games played during the Mother's Day weekend Ripken tournament in 2014. While in her office, she said Williams watched the video and got very loud and said "Fuck the Ripken Tournament." She was so upset that she cried as a result of the outburst. Williams later apologized and said he had been frustrated because he didn't see anything that would have justified his termination.
The attorney for Williams called two female parents of little leaguers on Williams' team ( Jersey Wild) yesterday to contradict the MLB Network's allegations. Both attended the May 10 and 11 tournament games at the Ripken field in 2014. They denied hearing any improper language from the coach Mitch Williams. A male witness, a parent of the Olney Pirates team testified that he heard the Pirates' head coach say, after the alleged "pussy" calling incident, that the coach was going to bury Mitch Williams. The plaintiff Williams rested their case.
The lawyer for the Network called as its first witness the 13 year old catcher for the Jersey Titans, the opposing team in the Sunday game against the Jersey Wild. He testified to the events of that day when he was just ten years old. He said he heard Williams talking in the dugout to his own team. He heard Williams call his friend the Titan pitcher a "pussy". He did not say that Williams said it to him directly, but it was loud enough for him to hear it clearly, and Williams turned towards the pitcher when he said it. The 13 year old also testified that he had an autographed baseball signed by Williams that he gave to a teacher because he was so upset about what Williams had said about his friend. The next witness was the Public Relations MLB Network employee Lorraine Fisher. She verified that former MLB Network President Anthony Petitti told Williams to view video of the games played during the Mother's Day weekend Ripken tournament in 2014. While in her office, she said Williams watched the video and got very loud and said "Fuck the Ripken Tournament." She was so upset that she cried as a result of the outburst. Williams later apologized and said he had been frustrated because he didn't see anything that would have justified his termination.
MLB Network calls key umpires against Mitch Williams
Attorneys for the MLB Network played a video recording of a deposition given by Joseph Addis Sr., a former purchasing director for three large corporation. The deposition was given January 2016 (He was also cross-examined by Williams" attorney)to testify about the events of the Mother's Day weekend little league tournament in 2014. Among other things, he stated that over his decades-long career as a certified umpire for the little league, he had only ejected fifteen to twenty people, and only three coaches. But in describing the ejection of Williams during the Saturday game, Addis said Williams was "the most out of control manager I've ever been associated with."
He detailed the basis for that opinion by the following:
1. Even before the game began, Williams said out loud, in reference to the opposing team's pitcher who was warming up, "Look at that little fucker throwing a curve ball." Addis said he said it twice more and was asked by the other umpire to refrain from such language. (He explained that since the game had not officially begun that they didn't feel he had jurisdiction to eject him at that time). Williams shrugged and walked away. Addis had never heard of Mitch Williams until the start of the game when Williams "was bragging he had been a major league player." Addis said the Ripken tournament begins with an announcement about the importance of good sportsmanship. Despite that, while giving the coaches ground rule instructions at home plate, Williams had his back turned, and did not shake hands with the two umpires or opposing coach as is the custom.
2. Williams made loud complaints about balls and strike from the very first pitch through the fifth inning and that the Wild fans took their subsequent tone from their coach.
3. That there was a controversial play at home plate when a Wild player slid home. Addis hesitated for a couple of seconds and then called the runner out. Williams ran down from his coaching box at first base and told him in a strenuous outcry, "You don't know what you're doing! I remember you from last year". (Addis testified he had not even been an umpire the prior year) In a voice more loud than he had ever heard from a coach, Williams continued, "I'll have your job for this....it's what I would expect from Ripken baseball." He then yelled into the crowd to a woman, "You have the camera on don't you?" We'll get his job. he said Williams lost perspective and he argued for 5-10 minutes. Finally Addis issued a warning to Williams.
4. After he tried to walk away the other umpire Scott Bulwicki tried to come between them. Addis heard Williams say "bastards".Bulwicki took exception to the threat to have him lose his job and then ejected Williams. The latter got in the face of Bulwicki, so close that spittle from Williams inadvertently hit Bulwicki. Then Williams chest bumped Bulwicki and pushed him with the chest. When other coaches came on the field, he told them that he was going to forfeit the game and award it to the Pirates unless Williams left. When a Ripken tournament representative came on the field, Williams left, but not before yelling "fuckers as he left the field.
Addis said he had never heard of Williams before the game, was not biased, and was never disciplined in his career as an umpire.
On cross examination he said there was not just one reason for the ejection but rather a cumulative effect. But he did say cursing itself would have been reason enough. he denied hearing an words between Williams and Bulwicki regarding a challenge to fight. he admitted that Williams' statement about the opposing pitcher pre-game was not directed to anyone in particular.
Next a video deposition was played of 53 year old burly Scott Bulwicki. He had retired as a longshoreman at the Port of Baltimore at age 42 and worked as an umpire for many years. Bulwicki, who reminded me of actor Gary Bussey in his looks, supported what Addis had said regarding the nature of Williams' behavior and also described it as the worst ever. He had only ejected three coaches in his life. He said the personal abuse he and Addis took regarding the threat to his job was his major basis for ejection. He said Williams yelled it to the crowd and to him and bragged that "You don't know who I know, and this is what you get for $14-15 an hour. You are both going to lose your jobs tomorrow."
He reiterated the statement about the "little fucker throwing a curve ball(opposing pitcher) while warming up. But bulwicki went further and said Williams had used curse words every inning including mother fucker towards him and 'fucker" several times. He quoted Williams as saying that call(at home plate) "was fucking crazy".
On cross, Williams' attorney got the witness to admit he had been suspended for seven weeks by the Ripken officials and therefore lost a considerable amount of money. The thrust of the cross was to suggest that the witness was out for revenge and was exaggerating the behavior and piling on and fabricating cursing which didn't exist. The defense led the witness down the rosy path to a point where he was backed into a corner. "If he was calling you an asshole and mother fucker during the game, why didn't you eject him before the 5th inning?' The witness could only respond that he gives more leeway to teams from New Jersey and NewYork because it's a different culture than down in Maryland.
On Friday, former major league player and current MLB analyst(brother of Cal Ripken) is expected to testify as well as Brett Curl a Ripken representative. Then there will be closing arguments. It is significant that neither side called as a witness the son of Williams or the pitcher for the Wild.
He detailed the basis for that opinion by the following:
1. Even before the game began, Williams said out loud, in reference to the opposing team's pitcher who was warming up, "Look at that little fucker throwing a curve ball." Addis said he said it twice more and was asked by the other umpire to refrain from such language. (He explained that since the game had not officially begun that they didn't feel he had jurisdiction to eject him at that time). Williams shrugged and walked away. Addis had never heard of Mitch Williams until the start of the game when Williams "was bragging he had been a major league player." Addis said the Ripken tournament begins with an announcement about the importance of good sportsmanship. Despite that, while giving the coaches ground rule instructions at home plate, Williams had his back turned, and did not shake hands with the two umpires or opposing coach as is the custom.
2. Williams made loud complaints about balls and strike from the very first pitch through the fifth inning and that the Wild fans took their subsequent tone from their coach.
3. That there was a controversial play at home plate when a Wild player slid home. Addis hesitated for a couple of seconds and then called the runner out. Williams ran down from his coaching box at first base and told him in a strenuous outcry, "You don't know what you're doing! I remember you from last year". (Addis testified he had not even been an umpire the prior year) In a voice more loud than he had ever heard from a coach, Williams continued, "I'll have your job for this....it's what I would expect from Ripken baseball." He then yelled into the crowd to a woman, "You have the camera on don't you?" We'll get his job. he said Williams lost perspective and he argued for 5-10 minutes. Finally Addis issued a warning to Williams.
4. After he tried to walk away the other umpire Scott Bulwicki tried to come between them. Addis heard Williams say "bastards".Bulwicki took exception to the threat to have him lose his job and then ejected Williams. The latter got in the face of Bulwicki, so close that spittle from Williams inadvertently hit Bulwicki. Then Williams chest bumped Bulwicki and pushed him with the chest. When other coaches came on the field, he told them that he was going to forfeit the game and award it to the Pirates unless Williams left. When a Ripken tournament representative came on the field, Williams left, but not before yelling "fuckers as he left the field.
Addis said he had never heard of Williams before the game, was not biased, and was never disciplined in his career as an umpire.
On cross examination he said there was not just one reason for the ejection but rather a cumulative effect. But he did say cursing itself would have been reason enough. he denied hearing an words between Williams and Bulwicki regarding a challenge to fight. he admitted that Williams' statement about the opposing pitcher pre-game was not directed to anyone in particular.
Next a video deposition was played of 53 year old burly Scott Bulwicki. He had retired as a longshoreman at the Port of Baltimore at age 42 and worked as an umpire for many years. Bulwicki, who reminded me of actor Gary Bussey in his looks, supported what Addis had said regarding the nature of Williams' behavior and also described it as the worst ever. He had only ejected three coaches in his life. He said the personal abuse he and Addis took regarding the threat to his job was his major basis for ejection. He said Williams yelled it to the crowd and to him and bragged that "You don't know who I know, and this is what you get for $14-15 an hour. You are both going to lose your jobs tomorrow."
He reiterated the statement about the "little fucker throwing a curve ball(opposing pitcher) while warming up. But bulwicki went further and said Williams had used curse words every inning including mother fucker towards him and 'fucker" several times. He quoted Williams as saying that call(at home plate) "was fucking crazy".
On cross, Williams' attorney got the witness to admit he had been suspended for seven weeks by the Ripken officials and therefore lost a considerable amount of money. The thrust of the cross was to suggest that the witness was out for revenge and was exaggerating the behavior and piling on and fabricating cursing which didn't exist. The defense led the witness down the rosy path to a point where he was backed into a corner. "If he was calling you an asshole and mother fucker during the game, why didn't you eject him before the 5th inning?' The witness could only respond that he gives more leeway to teams from New Jersey and NewYork because it's a different culture than down in Maryland.
On Friday, former major league player and current MLB analyst(brother of Cal Ripken) is expected to testify as well as Brett Curl a Ripken representative. Then there will be closing arguments. It is significant that neither side called as a witness the son of Williams or the pitcher for the Wild.
MLB Network wraps up its case against Mitch Williams.
The defense team for the network called Brett Curll, assistant director for Ripken baseball to testify today. He was the May 9-11 tournament director in 2014. He was called down to the playing field by the stadium's announcer during Saturday's game. The announcer said one coach was very upset by a call and was afraid it might get out of hand. He thereafter watched the game and observed Williams, the coach he was advised about. This was after a disputed play at home plate. At one point Curll went down onto the field because of a commotion created after Williams was ejected. He saw the umpire walking away from Williams into centerfield. Williams was yelling that the umpire should be fired because the umpire had offered to fight him in the parking lot. He went further and said he would not leave the field until the umpire was fired. Curll warned Williams that he would forfeit the game against Williams' team unless he left the game. He then began to escort Williams to the parking lot but the game ended in the interim so he allowed Williams to go back with his team and gather his things. Curll said he and two other officials allowed Williams to coach the next day because he had only had an opportunity to briefly ask the home umpire Joseph Addis what occurred. He learned that Williams was ejected for arguing a call at the plate. When he later gathered facts from the other umpire, and from what he heard and observed, he felt the ejection had been justified and warranted a one game suspension. He also told the eight person jury that grounds for ejection include badgering an umpire, profanity, personal attacks at an umpire or player, and bad behavior. He did later hear from coaches and parents from the Pirates team that objected to Williams being permitted to coach Sunday's game against the Titans. He was told on Sunday by the Titans head coach that there had been prior incidents between the Titans and Wild teams and asked Curll to watch the game.
Curll cautioned Williams early in the game because the latter was yelling to his batters what pitch the opposing pitcher was about to throw as the pitcher was winding up to throw. Curll explained that was poor sportsmanship because it disturbed the pitcher and that Ripken baseball seeks good sportsmanship. During the game, he was told by the Titans coach that Williams had called the Titans pitcher a "pussy", but Curll could not verify it with either umpire and Williams denied it. He said the game was intense because fans were yelling across the field at each other. Curll left for a few minutes but when he returned the Titan coach was furious that his pitcher had been hit by a pitched ball. Curll testified that Titan coaches said they heard Williams order the catcher to tell his pitcher to deliberately hit the batter. Curll asked both umpires but they didn't feel it was an intentional hit by pitch. The game became unruly after that incident. Curll did testify that he heard Williams curse during the tournament when the two were talking in the dugout. Williams said "Why the fuck would I call a kid a pussy?". Curll cautioned Williams that a kid might walk up to them and hear the cursing. He also asked Williams whether he said during warm up words to the effect of "why would a fucking ten year old be throwing a curve ball?" Williams admitted he said it, but only under his breath and not loud enough for anyone else to hear. On cross examination, Curll admitted that the ejecting umpire also cursed with children nearby. Curll testified that the umpire accused him of taking Williams' side and "that was fucking bullshit". He also said that the umpire was suspended for his remark about challenging Williams to a fight. He did not hear Williams use the word asshole or bastards towards the umpires, but he recalls Williams asking, "Why the fuck are they throwing me out when the umpire threatened to beat me up." The legal team for Williams pointed out that umpire Addis didn't tell him about Williams cursing nor did he put that in his incident report.
Then Bill Ripken testified for the defense. he is co-owner of and founder of The Ripken Foundation. He is the brother of Hall of Famer Cal Ripken(co-owner). He said the foundation was created to give those millions of young children the chance to play on a field that is much like a major league baseball field. He described The Ripken Way as creating an atmosphere where baseball is taught in a fun way, simply, and to celebrate each individual's capacities. He is in his ninth year as an analyst for the MLB network. He began the same day as Williams-January 2009. Ripken was emailed after the Saturday game by one of his Ripken officials and Ripken forwarded it to Lorraine Fisher of MLB Network as a precautionary act. Once he did that he was "all good-I'm out. At first he did not think it was a big deal but later reversed his opinion when he viewed the video and got complaints from parents and coaches. He watched the video with Williams and told the latter he was concerned about the length(described as seven minutes) of the argument over the ejection He gets concerned about any coach ejection because parents pay a lot of money for the chance to participate and an ejection diminishes the value of the experience. He also gave an opinion that it is rare for a ten year old to be able to control a ball to the point that he can pitch effectively inside.
On cross Williams' attorney pointed out that Ripken makes a lot of money from the 2,500 teams that play at the stadium and that bad publicity can devalue the tournament; that Brett Curll is his employee, and that Bill Ripken is employed by MLB Network. The suggestion is that he would have a bias or interest in the outcome of the case.
The testimony today was limited by legal arguments over the charge to the jury and other legal matters. Closing statements will occur Monday at about 11:30.
Curll cautioned Williams early in the game because the latter was yelling to his batters what pitch the opposing pitcher was about to throw as the pitcher was winding up to throw. Curll explained that was poor sportsmanship because it disturbed the pitcher and that Ripken baseball seeks good sportsmanship. During the game, he was told by the Titans coach that Williams had called the Titans pitcher a "pussy", but Curll could not verify it with either umpire and Williams denied it. He said the game was intense because fans were yelling across the field at each other. Curll left for a few minutes but when he returned the Titan coach was furious that his pitcher had been hit by a pitched ball. Curll testified that Titan coaches said they heard Williams order the catcher to tell his pitcher to deliberately hit the batter. Curll asked both umpires but they didn't feel it was an intentional hit by pitch. The game became unruly after that incident. Curll did testify that he heard Williams curse during the tournament when the two were talking in the dugout. Williams said "Why the fuck would I call a kid a pussy?". Curll cautioned Williams that a kid might walk up to them and hear the cursing. He also asked Williams whether he said during warm up words to the effect of "why would a fucking ten year old be throwing a curve ball?" Williams admitted he said it, but only under his breath and not loud enough for anyone else to hear. On cross examination, Curll admitted that the ejecting umpire also cursed with children nearby. Curll testified that the umpire accused him of taking Williams' side and "that was fucking bullshit". He also said that the umpire was suspended for his remark about challenging Williams to a fight. He did not hear Williams use the word asshole or bastards towards the umpires, but he recalls Williams asking, "Why the fuck are they throwing me out when the umpire threatened to beat me up." The legal team for Williams pointed out that umpire Addis didn't tell him about Williams cursing nor did he put that in his incident report.
Then Bill Ripken testified for the defense. he is co-owner of and founder of The Ripken Foundation. He is the brother of Hall of Famer Cal Ripken(co-owner). He said the foundation was created to give those millions of young children the chance to play on a field that is much like a major league baseball field. He described The Ripken Way as creating an atmosphere where baseball is taught in a fun way, simply, and to celebrate each individual's capacities. He is in his ninth year as an analyst for the MLB network. He began the same day as Williams-January 2009. Ripken was emailed after the Saturday game by one of his Ripken officials and Ripken forwarded it to Lorraine Fisher of MLB Network as a precautionary act. Once he did that he was "all good-I'm out. At first he did not think it was a big deal but later reversed his opinion when he viewed the video and got complaints from parents and coaches. He watched the video with Williams and told the latter he was concerned about the length(described as seven minutes) of the argument over the ejection He gets concerned about any coach ejection because parents pay a lot of money for the chance to participate and an ejection diminishes the value of the experience. He also gave an opinion that it is rare for a ten year old to be able to control a ball to the point that he can pitch effectively inside.
On cross Williams' attorney pointed out that Ripken makes a lot of money from the 2,500 teams that play at the stadium and that bad publicity can devalue the tournament; that Brett Curll is his employee, and that Bill Ripken is employed by MLB Network. The suggestion is that he would have a bias or interest in the outcome of the case.
The testimony today was limited by legal arguments over the charge to the jury and other legal matters. Closing statements will occur Monday at about 11:30.
Summations and jury charge in Mitch Williams vs. MLBNetwork trial
The defendant MLB Network began its summation by telling the jury that they had just one simple question to answer; namely did Mitch Williams commit any act that violated the morals cause(section 1503) of his contract? Peter Hughes argued that, rather than foster youth baseball, Williams had "created a tension convention" in which he made a spectacle of himself during a 10 year old little league tournament in May of 2014.
Hughes enumerated the various act(s) that would justify the jury finding that Williams had placed himself in public contempt, ridicule, or scandal, or had put himself in public disrepute. And therefore he had reduced his own commercial value and that of the network itself if he had not been fired.( see other blog posts for specifics) He told the jury the fact that Williams was unable to obtain employment for 30 months after the firing was proof that the bad publicity tainted him and the network. He argued that Williams had made the weekend a bad experience for all who attended by constantly badgering, berating, and threatening to get the umpires fired. He said the umpires gave Williams too much leeway until they finally ejected him.He emphasized that a then 10 year old catcher for the opposing team(Titans) heard Williams turn towards the opposing pitcher and say that the Titans pitcher was a "pussy" for not throwing his son(Williams') a fastball rather than curve ball. That child, now 13, did testify at trial.
Then the attorney used a circumstantial evidence theory to prove that Williams had ordered his own son(the team's catcher) to tell his pitcher to bean the opposing pitcher when he came to bat. No one directly testified that they were told or heard Williams order the bean ball. Neither side called Williams' son or the Jersey Wild pitcher. He showed video of the game. He argued that the Titans pitcher had stepped on the first baseman's foot running at first base and that Williams' son threw down his helmet in disgust. This was also after the Titans' pitcher had struck out Williams' son the prior inning on a curve ball which Williams took exception to, and caused further tension. The video show Williams talking to his catcher(his son) between innings and the latter goes to the mound to talk to the pitcher. The attorney argued the two boys then glared at the opposing pitcher who was getting ready to bat and then looked at Williams. The batter went down the third base line to talk to his coach and told him, "I'm going to get hit." On the very first pitch the batter got hit by the pitch and raised his arms as if to say, I told you". Hughes argued Williams had lied on the stand when he said he merely told the catcher to pitch inside because he had hit a double on an outside pitch earlier. Hughes reminded the jury that the batter had actually grounded out. Hughes said that even if he had merely said pitch him inside or move him off the plate, that was reckless indifference in view of the hit batter by the same pitcher a day earlier. Hughes summed up Williams' testimony and case by suggesting Williams would have you believe everyone else lied except Williams. He also reminded the jury that the weekend events were reported in Deadspin(then the most widely read sports blog), The NY Daily News, Bleacher report, USA Today, SI, and caused harm to the network which justified the firing. He said the defense should not be faulted monetarily for not firing Williams for a month. While he said they were foolish, they were trying to work out some compromise to allow Williams to stay under three conditions. He also argued that it would be absurd to award Williams damages for the 2016 option year because no network would have kept him after the publicity.
Williams' attorney Laurie Mattiocchi hammered away at the burden of proof that the network to not only prove the acts but also to prove they were significant enough to warrant termination. She went through the allegations in the lawsuit one by one. She emphasized that there was no "profanity laced tirade" as was portrayed by the defense. She emphasized that based on the testimony even the two umpires gave inconsistent versions of the nature of the profanity, when it occurred, whether it was during or before and after the game, and whether children heard it. Despite the allegation that her client called an umpire a mother f****er, she said not even one parent heard it nor did the home plate umpire. She said the audio and video of the games contradicted the defense claim as well. She hammered away at the lack of evidence presented by the defense-no parents heard anything or saw Williams bump the umpire. No one brought in cell phone recordings of the game to support the defense.
Regarding the "pussy" allegation, she said the sole witness at trial was a 10 year old who may have thought he heard something like it and that by "suggestion", he may have believed that it was actually said. She reminded the jury by video that the umpire and coaches were close to the child when he said he heard it and yet neither the umpires, coaches, or parents testified to corroborate the claim. Furthermore, she argued from the video that even the youngster was not close enough to have heard it said. She also called out the defense for promising in its opening that they would call two children when in fact only one testified.
On the bean ball she argued that it was a "conspiracy theory" without substance. No witness testified to what was said, despite close proximity of the umpire, and she pointed out that the plate umpire did not feel it had been an intentional hit by pitch.
She also reminded the jury of the testimony of one Titans player's parents who said he heard one or more of the Titans coach say "they will bury Mitch." He also asked the coach(s) to retract what they had said to Deadspin (if in fact they had) because it was not true. She argued that if the act(s) had been so repugnant, why had the network allowed Williams to work the few day after the weekend. And why had they been trying to amend the contract to permit Williams to remain on air if the acts had put Williams in public disrepute?
Finally she urged the jury to find that the network was reasonably likely to grant Williams an option year based on the fact that the CEO Anthony Pettiti had given Williams a $50,000 bonus in 2010, had exercised an option in 2011 to extend the contract and was willing to amend the contract rather than fire him. It was only after Williams had retained her as counsel, did the network fire her client she argued.
Judge Michael Kassel, Camden County Superior Court charged the eight person jury that the network had the burden to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence(51% rather than beyond a reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence). The parties agreed to keep the eight jurors rather than drop it to six with two alternates as is their choice. The parties agreed that six of the eight must agree either way for a verdict. According to the judge, the amount of contract damages exceeds 1.5 million dollars. If they jury adds the option year, the damages would be over 2.2 million. The jury will deliberate tomorrow.
Hughes enumerated the various act(s) that would justify the jury finding that Williams had placed himself in public contempt, ridicule, or scandal, or had put himself in public disrepute. And therefore he had reduced his own commercial value and that of the network itself if he had not been fired.( see other blog posts for specifics) He told the jury the fact that Williams was unable to obtain employment for 30 months after the firing was proof that the bad publicity tainted him and the network. He argued that Williams had made the weekend a bad experience for all who attended by constantly badgering, berating, and threatening to get the umpires fired. He said the umpires gave Williams too much leeway until they finally ejected him.He emphasized that a then 10 year old catcher for the opposing team(Titans) heard Williams turn towards the opposing pitcher and say that the Titans pitcher was a "pussy" for not throwing his son(Williams') a fastball rather than curve ball. That child, now 13, did testify at trial.
Then the attorney used a circumstantial evidence theory to prove that Williams had ordered his own son(the team's catcher) to tell his pitcher to bean the opposing pitcher when he came to bat. No one directly testified that they were told or heard Williams order the bean ball. Neither side called Williams' son or the Jersey Wild pitcher. He showed video of the game. He argued that the Titans pitcher had stepped on the first baseman's foot running at first base and that Williams' son threw down his helmet in disgust. This was also after the Titans' pitcher had struck out Williams' son the prior inning on a curve ball which Williams took exception to, and caused further tension. The video show Williams talking to his catcher(his son) between innings and the latter goes to the mound to talk to the pitcher. The attorney argued the two boys then glared at the opposing pitcher who was getting ready to bat and then looked at Williams. The batter went down the third base line to talk to his coach and told him, "I'm going to get hit." On the very first pitch the batter got hit by the pitch and raised his arms as if to say, I told you". Hughes argued Williams had lied on the stand when he said he merely told the catcher to pitch inside because he had hit a double on an outside pitch earlier. Hughes reminded the jury that the batter had actually grounded out. Hughes said that even if he had merely said pitch him inside or move him off the plate, that was reckless indifference in view of the hit batter by the same pitcher a day earlier. Hughes summed up Williams' testimony and case by suggesting Williams would have you believe everyone else lied except Williams. He also reminded the jury that the weekend events were reported in Deadspin(then the most widely read sports blog), The NY Daily News, Bleacher report, USA Today, SI, and caused harm to the network which justified the firing. He said the defense should not be faulted monetarily for not firing Williams for a month. While he said they were foolish, they were trying to work out some compromise to allow Williams to stay under three conditions. He also argued that it would be absurd to award Williams damages for the 2016 option year because no network would have kept him after the publicity.
Williams' attorney Laurie Mattiocchi hammered away at the burden of proof that the network to not only prove the acts but also to prove they were significant enough to warrant termination. She went through the allegations in the lawsuit one by one. She emphasized that there was no "profanity laced tirade" as was portrayed by the defense. She emphasized that based on the testimony even the two umpires gave inconsistent versions of the nature of the profanity, when it occurred, whether it was during or before and after the game, and whether children heard it. Despite the allegation that her client called an umpire a mother f****er, she said not even one parent heard it nor did the home plate umpire. She said the audio and video of the games contradicted the defense claim as well. She hammered away at the lack of evidence presented by the defense-no parents heard anything or saw Williams bump the umpire. No one brought in cell phone recordings of the game to support the defense.
Regarding the "pussy" allegation, she said the sole witness at trial was a 10 year old who may have thought he heard something like it and that by "suggestion", he may have believed that it was actually said. She reminded the jury by video that the umpire and coaches were close to the child when he said he heard it and yet neither the umpires, coaches, or parents testified to corroborate the claim. Furthermore, she argued from the video that even the youngster was not close enough to have heard it said. She also called out the defense for promising in its opening that they would call two children when in fact only one testified.
On the bean ball she argued that it was a "conspiracy theory" without substance. No witness testified to what was said, despite close proximity of the umpire, and she pointed out that the plate umpire did not feel it had been an intentional hit by pitch.
She also reminded the jury of the testimony of one Titans player's parents who said he heard one or more of the Titans coach say "they will bury Mitch." He also asked the coach(s) to retract what they had said to Deadspin (if in fact they had) because it was not true. She argued that if the act(s) had been so repugnant, why had the network allowed Williams to work the few day after the weekend. And why had they been trying to amend the contract to permit Williams to remain on air if the acts had put Williams in public disrepute?
Finally she urged the jury to find that the network was reasonably likely to grant Williams an option year based on the fact that the CEO Anthony Pettiti had given Williams a $50,000 bonus in 2010, had exercised an option in 2011 to extend the contract and was willing to amend the contract rather than fire him. It was only after Williams had retained her as counsel, did the network fire her client she argued.
Judge Michael Kassel, Camden County Superior Court charged the eight person jury that the network had the burden to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence(51% rather than beyond a reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence). The parties agreed to keep the eight jurors rather than drop it to six with two alternates as is their choice. The parties agreed that six of the eight must agree either way for a verdict. According to the judge, the amount of contract damages exceeds 1.5 million dollars. If they jury adds the option year, the damages would be over 2.2 million. The jury will deliberate tomorrow.
